The new getaway for those who hate government oppression: Mogadishu! It's a near anarchy with no taxation [http://en.wikipedia.org...]. Enjoy lounging in the sun whilst your armed guards keep beggars and would-be-thieves at bay. And, people are leaving this haven, meaning there is an abundant chance for you to get on the capitalist ladder now!

At 9/2/2009 1:00:01 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:The new getaway for those who hate government oppression: Mogadishu! It's a near anarchy with no taxation [http://en.wikipedia.org...]. Enjoy lounging in the sun whilst your armed guards keep beggars and would-be-thieves at bay. And, people are leaving this haven, meaning there is an abundant chance for you to get on the capitalist ladder now!

Excellent post, except for the conflation of anarchism and capitalism. It would be a shame to surrender healthy disdain for government to the most dictatorial of philosophies.

From the time of the progressive era with the rise of public schooling through the post-WWII period, capital invaded the time workers had liberated from waged work and shaped it for purposes of social control. Perhaps the most obvious moment of this colonization was the re-incarceration in schools of the young (who were expelled from the factories by child labor laws) such that what might have been free time was structured to convert their life energies into labor power.

At 9/2/2009 1:00:01 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:The new getaway for those who hate government oppression: Mogadishu! It's a near anarchy with no taxation [http://en.wikipedia.org...]. Enjoy lounging in the sun whilst your armed guards keep beggars and would-be-thieves at bay. And, people are leaving this haven, meaning there is an abundant chance for you to get on the capitalist ladder now!

Excellent post, except for the conflation of anarchism and capitalism. It would be a shame to surrender healthy disdain for government to the most dictatorial of philosophies.

At 9/2/2009 1:00:01 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:The new getaway for those who hate government oppression: Mogadishu! It's a near anarchy with no taxation [http://en.wikipedia.org...]. Enjoy lounging in the sun whilst your armed guards keep beggars and would-be-thieves at bay. And, people are leaving this haven, meaning there is an abundant chance for you to get on the capitalist ladder now!

Excellent post, except for the conflation of anarchism and capitalism. It would be a shame to surrender healthy disdain for government to the most dictatorial of philosophies.

Well, if you want anarcho-communism, start a religion :P.

I don't know what you mean. Anarchism, which completes communism, is an ideal, not a religion. In fact, the status quo is a religion, with people like you pretending its God-like infinity.

From the time of the progressive era with the rise of public schooling through the post-WWII period, capital invaded the time workers had liberated from waged work and shaped it for purposes of social control. Perhaps the most obvious moment of this colonization was the re-incarceration in schools of the young (who were expelled from the factories by child labor laws) such that what might have been free time was structured to convert their life energies into labor power.

At 9/2/2009 1:00:01 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:The new getaway for those who hate government oppression: Mogadishu! It's a near anarchy with no taxation [http://en.wikipedia.org...]. Enjoy lounging in the sun whilst your armed guards keep beggars and would-be-thieves at bay. And, people are leaving this haven, meaning there is an abundant chance for you to get on the capitalist ladder now!

Excellent post, except for the conflation of anarchism and capitalism. It would be a shame to surrender healthy disdain for government to the most dictatorial of philosophies.

Well, if you want anarcho-communism, start a religion :P.

I don't know what you mean. Anarchism, which completes communism, is an ideal, not a religion. In fact, the status quo is a religion, with people like you pretending its God-like infinity.

Anarcho-communism can only exist if you limit the free-thinking of humans, either through religion or through common human goodwill. Religion would be the best route.

At 9/2/2009 1:54:03 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:Anarcho-communism can only exist if you limit the free-thinking of humans, either through religion or through common human goodwill. Religion would be the best route.

Just like National Socialism (ie. Nazi Germany) can only exist if you mass-propagandize the citizens. Any extreme ideas need a cultish leader with cultish ideals. Marxism is practically a religion. Millions have been indoctrinated. Marxism and communism have failed in every country it has been tried in so far though.

At 9/2/2009 1:54:03 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:Anarcho-communism can only exist if you limit the free-thinking of humans, either through religion or through common human goodwill. Religion would be the best route.

Just like National Socialism (ie. Nazi Germany) can only exist if you mass-propagandize the citizens. Any extreme ideas need a cultish leader with cultish ideals. Marxism is practically a religion. Millions have been indoctrinated. Marxism and communism have failed in every country it has been tried in so far though.

Just as everyone in America has been indoctrinated that Democracy is good.

At 9/2/2009 1:54:03 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:Anarcho-communism can only exist if you limit the free-thinking of humans, either through religion or through common human goodwill. Religion would be the best route.

Just like National Socialism (ie. Nazi Germany) can only exist if you mass-propagandize the citizens. Any extreme ideas need a cultish leader with cultish ideals. Marxism is practically a religion. Millions have been indoctrinated. Marxism and communism have failed in every country it has been tried in so far though.

Just as everyone in America has been indoctrinated that Democracy is good.

At 9/2/2009 1:54:03 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:Anarcho-communism can only exist if you limit the free-thinking of humans, either through religion or through common human goodwill. Religion would be the best route.

Just like National Socialism (ie. Nazi Germany) can only exist if you mass-propagandize the citizens. Any extreme ideas need a cultish leader with cultish ideals. Marxism is practically a religion. Millions have been indoctrinated. Marxism and communism have failed in every country it has been tried in so far though.

Just as everyone in America has been indoctrinated that Democracy is good.

Except America isn't a Democracy. It's a Republic.

Universal suffrage. A constitution. The American system was struck as a compromise between an oligarchy and a democracy.

At 9/2/2009 1:54:03 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:Anarcho-communism can only exist if you limit the free-thinking of humans, either through religion or through common human goodwill. Religion would be the best route.

Just like National Socialism (ie. Nazi Germany) can only exist if you mass-propagandize the citizens. Any extreme ideas need a cultish leader with cultish ideals. Marxism is practically a religion. Millions have been indoctrinated. Marxism and communism have failed in every country it has been tried in so far though.

Just as everyone in America has been indoctrinated that Democracy is good.

Except America isn't a Democracy. It's a Republic.

Universal suffrage. A constitution. The American system was struck as a compromise between an oligarchy and a democracy.

- You are objecting that everyone should be able to vote?... For their representatives.

- You are objecting to a constitution that has been copied by every other country on Earth.

- No. The Founding Fathers understood the troubles that come with a Democracy. That's why the US is a Democratic Republic.

> Oh yes, we've been indoctrinated. There has never been a more successful country than the United States.

I don't know what you mean. Anarchism, which completes communism, is an ideal, not a religion.

Communism is nowadays indistinguishable from a religion. Communists read old books which has been proven to be incorrect and read them like they are an absolute truth that can not be contradicted, and look at their authors like some sort of perfect godlike prophets. Worst of all is marxism, which has humanity starting out in the garden of eden, and a big showdown between the two forces in the world, where one side is predestined to prevail and then the world will end in a perfect harmony and peace.

In fact, the status quo is a religion, with people like you pretending its God-like infinity.

since the city was mostly under the control of various heavily-armed militias and factions

Lot's of ultralocal governments does not make government any less present, and more importantly I highly doubt none demand tribute whatever the news agencies say. In 2006 I know Islamists started collecting taxes there, maybe they stopped, but who's to say they won't again? Especially since those telecoms seem to want to give up whatever semblance of liberty they've gained the second they find someone who can hold the city. War is an intermediary situation, not a permanent culture.

It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.

At 9/2/2009 1:00:01 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:The new getaway for those who hate government oppression: Mogadishu! It's a near anarchy with no taxation [http://en.wikipedia.org...]. Enjoy lounging in the sun whilst your armed guards keep beggars and would-be-thieves at bay. And, people are leaving this haven, meaning there is an abundant chance for you to get on the capitalist ladder now!

Excellent post, except for the conflation of anarchism and capitalism. It would be a shame to surrender healthy disdain for government to the most dictatorial of philosophies.

Well, if you want anarcho-communism, start a religion :P.

I don't know what you mean. Anarchism, which completes communism, is an ideal, not a religion. In fact, the status quo is a religion, with people like you pretending its God-like infinity.

Anarcho-communism can only exist if you limit the free-thinking of humans, either through religion or through common human goodwill. Religion would be the best route.

Don't take "communism" so literally as to preclude individuality. The point of anarchism is to minimize unnatural (which is not an endorsement of natural) barriers to free-thinking. "Communism" simply clarifies that property is one such barrier.

From the time of the progressive era with the rise of public schooling through the post-WWII period, capital invaded the time workers had liberated from waged work and shaped it for purposes of social control. Perhaps the most obvious moment of this colonization was the re-incarceration in schools of the young (who were expelled from the factories by child labor laws) such that what might have been free time was structured to convert their life energies into labor power.

That is as silly as me claiming that if you want government involvement in your everyday life then you should move to Iran. There is an obvious and very big middle ground in between absolute government control and complete anarchy. Hopefully you see that and were just joking.

At 9/2/2009 1:06:14 PM, TombLikeBomb wrote:Excellent post, except for the conflation of anarchism and capitalism.

Please explain to me: How are you going to stop trade and private capital in an anarchy?

It's useless to try to stop trade--that is, trade in consumer goods--once private capital has been abolished. As for its return, that would entail irrational, conspicuous theft by force, same as it historically has. Theft in general is much more a danger to propertarian systems, where its consequences are less conspicuous. But you're probably referring to anarchim's supposed lack of a "police force". If you mean collective violence in order to right a wrong, it doesn't. If you mean a warrior class, it does, as the warrior class is history's original thief. But again, compromises must be made in times of war, and some things are simply unsustainable. There's nothing you can do when, for example, you have an alliance of Stalinists and local liberals trying to crush you from within and an alliance of Fascists and foreign liberals trying to crush you from without, which was the situation of Catalonia and not atypical.

From the time of the progressive era with the rise of public schooling through the post-WWII period, capital invaded the time workers had liberated from waged work and shaped it for purposes of social control. Perhaps the most obvious moment of this colonization was the re-incarceration in schools of the young (who were expelled from the factories by child labor laws) such that what might have been free time was structured to convert their life energies into labor power.

As for its return, that would entail irrational, conspicuous theft by force, same as it historically has.

I assume you mean private capital here. Private capital has never necessarily entailed this (even if that of course is one way to gather private capital).

But that brings new questions into focus:3. How are you going to prevent somebody from controlling, and thereby owning, an object?4. How are you going to stop people from making a profit on trade? (The actual source of most private capital).

But you're probably referring to anarchim's supposed lack of a "police force".

No, I refer to it's lack of a monopoly on violence. That includes a lack of police force and a lack of warrior class, and a lack of legal system with any sort of authority to enforce it's rulings.

But again, compromises must be made in times of war, and some things are simply unsustainable.

Anarchism results in a constant state of war.

There's nothing you can do when, for example, you have an alliance of Stalinists and local liberals trying to crush you from within and an alliance of Fascists and foreign liberals trying to crush you from without, which was the situation of Catalonia and not atypical.

So your answer to how you are going to stop an anarchy from being capitalist is that you can't stop it? Then your anarchy will not be communist, it will be capitalist.

I don't know what you mean. Anarchism, which completes communism, is an ideal, not a religion.

Communism is nowadays indistinguishable from a religion. Communists read old books which has been proven to be incorrect and read them like they are an absolute truth that can not be contradicted, and look at their authors like some sort of perfect godlike prophets. Worst of all is marxism, which has humanity starting out in the garden of eden, and a big showdown between the two forces in the world, where one side is predestined to prevail and then the world will end in a perfect harmony and peace.

You obviously haven't read Marx. Marx wasn't a primitivist. His "garden of eden" was as unflattering as you like and more. As a materialist, he didn't give it much credit for being communistic, which is the modern anthropological consensus, and it was his least favorite of the periods. Marx is probably adhered to too much by some communists, particularly Communists, but the topic here is anarcho-communism, which has nothing to do with Marx. Kropotkin was a Darwinist and enjoys no idolatry. In fact, it's hard to find so much as a reference to Kropotkin or any other dead philosopher in the modern anarcho-communist literature.

In fact, the status quo is a religion, with people like you pretending its God-like infinity.

You are hallucinating. That is not a revelation, if you wonder.

I believe the acronym is TINA (There Is No Alternative). It's just as deterministic to have blind faith in a thing's permanance as it is to have blind faith in its replacement. But it's hard to take liberals seriously when they say anarchism must self-destruct and then seek and effect its destruction wherever it pops up.

From the time of the progressive era with the rise of public schooling through the post-WWII period, capital invaded the time workers had liberated from waged work and shaped it for purposes of social control. Perhaps the most obvious moment of this colonization was the re-incarceration in schools of the young (who were expelled from the factories by child labor laws) such that what might have been free time was structured to convert their life energies into labor power.

Yeah, that's obviously wrong. There are infinite alternatives. But when we talk about general things like capitalism vs socialism, then socialism simply doesn't work.

There is no functioning alternative to liberal, capitalist, democracy. But then we of course have infinite alternatives within this.

It's just as deterministic to have blind faith in a thing's permanance as it is to have blind faith in its replacement.

Nobody has blind faith in any permanence or status quo. As I mentioned: You are simply hallucinating. You are dreaming a dream, and within that dream, you are knowledgeable, smart, logical and always correct.

But as long as you dream that dream, out here, in reality, you will be dead wrong about everything.

But it's hard to take liberals seriously when they say anarchism must self-destruct

Except, of course, you have implicitly admitted that this is so. You just didn't get it. The penny never dropped for you. You were tantalizingly close, but... nope.

As for its return, that would entail irrational, conspicuous theft by force, same as it historically has.

I assume you mean private capital here. Private capital has never necessarily entailed this (even if that of course is one way to gather private capital).

Is it seriously in doubt? The land under my feet was made private capital by the slaughter of Indians by European settlers. Private absentee ownership returned to your city through the slaughter of Communards by the Versailles government. But I do agree that quite often only the threat of force is necessary.

But that brings new questions into focus:3. How are you going to prevent somebody from controlling, and thereby owning, an object?

If a sufficient number of people want badly enough to do so, the society is not ready for anarchism. Anarchism is against domination (of which ownership is a type), it doesn't deny the existence of domination or the desire therefor. But if such domination can be stopped, it will be stopped under anarchism as under the current system: force in response to force. If by "controlling" you mean something less than domination, something pre-agreed to and temporary, anarchism doesn't oppose that.

4. How are you going to stop people from making a profit on trade? (The actual source of most private capital).

Given the collectivised nature of the mean of production, trade will only be profitable to the extent that one can predict mistakes others will make in planning consumption. Such profit is obviously inferior to educating said others in the science of planning but superior to lack of both education and trade. However, it's unclear how such trading would result in private capital. Profit isn't in fact the source of private capital per se, only the source of the profiteer's purchasing of already privatised capital. If you mean, on the other hand, building some sort of tool out of, say, a candy bar, trade is unnecessary to the equation. To reward such feats of ingenuity with property rights wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing, but better would be to reward them in a rational manner: pay the inventor for labor and expropriate him of the object. If it has sentimental value or he is particularly skilled for it, he will probably not in any real sense lose it anyway.

But you're probably referring to anarchim's supposed lack of a "police force".

No, I refer to it's lack of a monopoly on violence. That includes a lack of police force and a lack of warrior class, and a lack of legal system with any sort of authority to enforce it's rulings.

Now you're describing a fictitious anarchism. Interference with the people's rulings is oppressive, and the people are within their rights to deal with it as anarchists have always suggested dealing with oppressors.

But again, compromises must be made in times of war, and some things are simply unsustainable.

Anarchism results in a constant state of war.

Empirically, you of course have no leg to stand on. You've already admitted that Sweden, which is in every way more anarchistic than Somalia, is more peaceful. The example is of course representative. But Sweden is obviously far from completely anarchistic, for which it's useful to look to societies that come much closer to anarchism, such as the exceedingy peaceful Israeli kibbutzim, many Native American nations, and--but for the defensive war with the liberals and Stalinists--Anarchist Spain. That's not to mention the many smaller past an present anarchist communities of which you've failed to name a single one that matches your description. Your characterization of anarchism as internally violent is dependent on theoretically maximizing the possibility of violence to anarchism and minimizing it for non-anarchism. Until you consent to test anarchism and non-anarchism on the same species, we're at an impasse. What, for example, is the chaos in Somalia? Did an anarchism precede or did a non-anarchism?

There's nothing you can do when, for example, you have an alliance of Stalinists and local liberals trying to crush you from within and an alliance of Fascists and foreign liberals trying to crush you from without, which was the situation of Catalonia and not atypical.

So your answer to how you are going to stop an anarchy from being capitalist is that you can't stop it? Then your anarchy will not be communist, it will be capitalist.

The problem is your reification of categories. For a short, relatively internally peaceful time, Catalonia was very anarchistic. Its return to captalism wasn't anarchy becoming capitalist, it was Catalonia becoming capitalist, courtesy of people who largely never even pretended to be anarchists. Of course, as "Stalinist" suggests, it was probably a mistake for me to call the coup "from within". The Stalinists were loyal to Russia, and their arms were from Russia. The strategy was the Popular Front, which in this case meant to appease the British and the French, who were ideologically equivalent to the Spanish liberals, who were "local" only relative to the Fascists. Anarchism was brought down by the Republican government; the latter's allies in Catalonia were too outnumbered to do it on their own.

From the time of the progressive era with the rise of public schooling through the post-WWII period, capital invaded the time workers had liberated from waged work and shaped it for purposes of social control. Perhaps the most obvious moment of this colonization was the re-incarceration in schools of the young (who were expelled from the factories by child labor laws) such that what might have been free time was structured to convert their life energies into labor power.

At 9/3/2009 7:02:11 AM, regebro wrote:I assume you mean private capital here. Private capital has never necessarily entailed this (even if that of course is one way to gather private capital).

Is it seriously in doubt?

There is no doubt.

The land under my feet was made private capital by the slaughter of Indians by European settlers. Private absentee ownership returned to your city through the slaughter of Communards by the Versailles government. But I do agree that quite often only the threat of force is necessary.

I repeat, but in different words:That A can lead to B, does not mean that A is a necessity for B.

Is this unclear?

But that brings new questions into focus:3. How are you going to prevent somebody from controlling, and thereby owning, an object?

If a sufficient number of people want badly enough to do so, the society is not ready for anarchism.

There is no "sufficient number" involved here. How are you going to prevent SOMEBODY, etc. Answer the question.

Anarchism is against domination (of which ownership is a type), it doesn't deny the existence of domination or the desire therefor. But if such domination can be stopped, it will be stopped under anarchism as under the current system: force in response to force.

Who is going to apply that force?

4. How are you going to stop people from making a profit on trade? (The actual source of most private capital).

Given the collectivised nature of the mean of production, trade will only be profitable to the extent that one can predict mistakes others will make in planning consumption.

No, this is false. Trade is profitable. How are you going to stop the people trading from accumulating the profit that they make?

No, I refer to it's lack of a monopoly on violence. That includes a lack of police force and a lack of warrior class, and a lack of legal system with any sort of authority to enforce it's rulings.

Now you're describing a fictitious anarchism.

All anarchism is fictitious, as it does not work and is impossible in practice. I am however describing anarchism according to it's own principles and ideas.

Interference with the people's rulings is oppressive, and the people are within their rights to deal with it as anarchists have always suggested dealing with oppressors.

I'm asking how you will stop capitalism from happening, and your answer is "in whatever way they stop it", which is not an answer.

Anarchism results in a constant state of war.

Empirically, you of course have no leg to stand on.

In fact, empirically, I do.

You've already admitted that Sweden, which is in every way more anarchistic than Somalia, is more peaceful.

You are hallucinating when you think Sweden is anarchic in any way at all. If you continue to claim this, I will be forced to conclude that you are insane.

At 9/3/2009 7:02:11 AM, regebro wrote:I assume you mean private capital here. Private capital has never necessarily entailed this (even if that of course is one way to gather private capital).

Is it seriously in doubt?

There is no doubt.

The land under my feet was made private capital by the slaughter of Indians by European settlers. Private absentee ownership returned to your city through the slaughter of Communards by the Versailles government. But I do agree that quite often only the threat of force is necessary.

I repeat, but in different words:That A can lead to B, does not mean that A is a necessity for B.

Is this unclear?

The logical truism is clear, but its relevance is minimized by your failure to provide an example of private property emerging otherwise than through force. More importantly, my failure to mention the theoretical possibility of a voluntary transition to private property was not a mistake: if such a transition is indeed voluntary, then it--though inferior to true anarchism, which respects future generations--refreshes capitalism. Capitalism beginning from the state of equality that is anarchism is progress from extant, rotten capitalism.

But that brings new questions into focus:3. How are you going to prevent somebody from controlling, and thereby owning, an object?

If a sufficient number of people want badly enough to do so, the society is not ready for anarchism.

There is no "sufficient number" involved here. How are you going to prevent SOMEBODY, etc. Answer the question.

Superior force, same as any common thief would be dealt with in any capitalist society.

Anarchism is against domination (of which ownership is a type), it doesn't deny the existence of domination or the desire therefor. But if such domination can be stopped, it will be stopped under anarchism as under the current system: force in response to force.

Who is going to apply that force?

Anarchists, who, if it is an anarchist society, will hold the majority. If you want names, I can't help you.

4. How are you going to stop people from making a profit on trade? (The actual source of most private capital).

Given the collectivised nature of the mean of production, trade will only be profitable to the extent that one can predict mistakes others will make in planning consumption.

No, this is false. Trade is profitable. How are you going to stop the people trading from accumulating the profit that they make?

Why would I want to? Anarchism is opposed to property, not accumulation of consumption goods through trade.

No, I refer to it's lack of a monopoly on violence. That includes a lack of police force and a lack of warrior class, and a lack of legal system with any sort of authority to enforce it's rulings.

Now you're describing a fictitious anarchism.

All anarchism is fictitious, as it does not work and is impossible in practice. I am however describing anarchism according to it's own principles and ideas.

A maximalist anarchism may be impossible (no -ism has ever been maximized), but I've already given you examples of actual near-anarchies that work just fine. In the unlikely event, though, that you understand anarchist "principles and ideas" better than someone who has actually read them, I suggest you argue with such anarchists, not me, who's made my position clear and distinct from your red herring.

Interference with the people's rulings is oppressive, and the people are within their rights to deal with it as anarchists have always suggested dealing with oppressors.

I'm asking how you will stop capitalism from happening, and your answer is "in whatever way they stop it", which is not an answer.

Rousseau gave a beautiful answer to how to stop capitalism, it used to be my sig. He said that when someone says "this is mine", someone else should tear out the stakes, fill up the ditch, and remind him that the earth belongs to no one, that its fruits are for all. Both the beauty and the relationship to reality are lost when we consider the reminded fellow a lunatic who will persist. But there is an answer for that as well, put best by Malcolm X: "by any means necessary". I can be as specific as you like if you can provide the specific scenario.

Anarchism results in a constant state of war.

Empirically, you of course have no leg to stand on.

In fact, empirically, I do.

You've already admitted that Sweden, which is in every way more anarchistic than Somalia, is more peaceful.

You are hallucinating when you think Sweden is anarchic in any way at all. If you continue to claim this, I will be forced to conclude that you are insane.

Now answer the questions.

No wonder a police interrogator opposes anarchism. Of course, I've already given you examples of peaceful (explicit) anarchies, and you've failed to provide counterexamples. Like any good police interrogator, you now bitch at the truth varying from your cynical worldview. As for Sweden, you may not think of it as more anarchic than the dictatorial relationships that characterise Somalia, despite my ignored explanation, but that is only as semantic dispute. When you read the anarchist literature for the first time, note that the term "anarchy" is rarely if ever used. Anarchism is a direction.

From the time of the progressive era with the rise of public schooling through the post-WWII period, capital invaded the time workers had liberated from waged work and shaped it for purposes of social control. Perhaps the most obvious moment of this colonization was the re-incarceration in schools of the young (who were expelled from the factories by child labor laws) such that what might have been free time was structured to convert their life energies into labor power.

At 9/3/2009 8:46:13 PM, TombLikeBomb wrote:The logical truism is clear, but its relevance is minimized by your failure to provide an example of private property emerging otherwise than through force.

Again: Trade means profit for those involved. People who trade will therefore accumulate property, unless they decide to spend it. This means private property emerges.

All private property NOT gained by force, is well, not gained by force. Do I really need examples for that? That's crazy... Who did Bill Gates point a gun at?

But that brings new questions into focus:3. How are you going to prevent somebody from controlling, and thereby owning, an object?

If a sufficient number of people want badly enough to do so, the society is not ready for anarchism.

There is no "sufficient number" involved here. How are you going to prevent SOMEBODY, etc. Answer the question.

Superior force, same as any common thief would be dealt with in any capitalist society.

Who is going to apply that force?

Anarchism is against domination (of which ownership is a type), it doesn't deny the existence of domination or the desire therefor. But if such domination can be stopped, it will be stopped under anarchism as under the current system: force in response to force.

Who is going to apply that force?

Anarchists, who, if it is an anarchist society, will hold the majority. If you want names, I can't help you.

Well, first of all, that is not an answer, it's a magic incantation. Your answer to the question of "who", is simply "somebody". That is not an answer, because saying that somebody should do a job it means it doesn't gets done, because as we say in Sweden, "Somebody isn't working here".

But secondly, you admit that it should be done by violence. Somebody, or some group, should according to you, go and beat the crap out of everyone who doesn't behave like you think they should behave.

Have you even considered that they might fight back?

Given the collectivised nature of the mean of production, trade will only be profitable to the extent that one can predict mistakes others will make in planning consumption.

No, this is false. Trade is profitable. How are you going to stop the people trading from accumulating the profit that they make?

Why would I want to?

You want to above. Above you say that this should be stopped by force.

Anarchism is opposed to property, not accumulation of consumption goods through trade.

Same thing, dear boy, same thing.

All anarchism is fictitious, as it does not work and is impossible in practice. I am however describing anarchism according to it's own principles and ideas.

A maximalist anarchism may be impossible (no -ism has ever been maximized), but I've already given you examples of actual near-anarchies that work just fine.

No you have not.

In the unlikely event, though, that you understand anarchist "principles and ideas" better than someone who has actually read them, I suggest you argue with such anarchists, not me, who's made my position clear and distinct from your red herring.

I've already made it completely clear that you are not an anarchist, You want a state. Anarchism is opposed to the state. You are not an anarchist. But I will continue to argue with you as an anarchist, as long as you call yourself an anarchist.

I'm asking how you will stop capitalism from happening, and your answer is "in whatever way they stop it", which is not an answer.

Rousseau gave a beautiful answer to how to stop capitalism, it used to be my sig. He said that when someone says "this is mine", someone else should tear out the stakes, fill up the ditch, and remind him that the earth belongs to no one, that its fruits are for all.

"Someone doesn't work here".

No wonder a police interrogator opposes anarchism. Of course, I've already given you examples of peaceful (explicit) anarchies

No you have not.

As for Sweden, you may not think of it as more anarchic than the dictatorial relationships that characterise Somalia

No, I *know* it isn't. Swedens state is very strong and pervasive.

This is your last chance: Sweden is not anarchic is any way. Do you understand that?

despite my ignored explanation

Explanation? What explanation? You have not explained anything, you just repeat the completely insane assertion that Sweden is more anarchic than Somalia. You evidently still do not understand that anarchism works for the abolishment of the state, despite my repeated explanations and references.

but that is only as semantic dispute.

No, this is now a question of your mental health. You are wrong about anarchism, which I have proven multiple times. The question now is simply this: Are you so incapable of admitting that you aer incorrect that you will rather deny reality and choose to become completely insane before admitting that you were wrong.

That's what it's about.

You have argued yourself into the smallest corner ever. And there is a door out of the corner. And that door is admitting that anarchy is the absence of state, and that anarchism and anarchists are opposed to a state.

That's all you need to do, to NOT go crazy: Admit that you were wrong.

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch." - Benjamin Franklin

He used Democracy in the old Aristotelian sense of the word, where it means "Deviant rule of the many". What we today call democracy, Aristotle would have called "Polity". The words have changed meaning.

And for some reason, everybody forgets the last part of the quote:

"Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote"

All he is saying is that the popular should never be allowed to overrule basic rights, and if it does so, you have the right to take up arms against the oppressing state. Yet people continue to use that quote as an argument against democracy making it sound like Franklin was some sort of wannabe dictator.